alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A90A0655.

#### JOHNSON v. THE STATE.

(394 SE2d 591)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant filed this appeal after her conviction for violating two counts of Georgia’s Controlled Substances Act (distributing cocaine). *Held:*

1. In her first enumeration, defendant contends the trial court erred in quashing her subpoena to the State Crime Laboratory chemist who analyzed the cocaine which defendant was accused of selling to a Georgia Bureau of Investigation undercover agent on two occasions. Defendant raises several constitutional challenges, but more specifically argues that denied access to the chemist’s work product resulted in a violation of her Sixth Amendment right to effectively cross-examine the State’s chemist.

In the whole court case of *Eason v. State,*194 Ga. App. 678, 680 (391 SE2d 427) (1990), this Court held that “[a]bsent a request for independent testing [of the suspect controlled substance] and a differing result, the defendant in a drug case is afforded the opportunity for an ‘effective cross-examination’ of the State’s expert as to his testing methods and results without having access to the entirety of his work product.” Id. In the case sub judice, defendant did not request or conduct an independent analysis of the suspected cocaine. Consequently, there was no basis for her request for the State’s expert’s work product. See *Dye v. State,*177 Ga. App. 813, 814 (3) (341 SE2d 469). The trial court did not err in quashing defendant’s subpoena to the State’s chemist.

2. In her second and third enumerations, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to give two of her requested jury instruc*602tions. Both requests address the weight to be given to expert testimony. This issue was properly covered in the trial court’s charge. Consequently, it was not error to exclude defendant’s requested instructions. See *Caldwell v. State,*167 Ga. App. 692, 695 (6) (307 SE2d 511).

Decided May 11, 1990.

*Larsen & Larsen, W. W. Larsen, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Ralph M. Walke, District Attorney, L. Craig Fraser, Peter F. Larsen, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

3. The State does not challenge defendant’s final enumeration.

Defendant was sentenced to serve 10 years on each count of the indictment concurrently, with the final 2 years to be served on probation. Among the conditions of probation was the payment of a $1,500 fine. “The trial court erred in making [defendant’s] payment of a fine a condition of probation without first conducting a hearing in accordance with *Bearden v. Georgia,*461 U. S. 660 (103 SC 2064, 76 LE2d 221) (1983). See *Gaither v. Inman,*253 Ga. 484 (322 SE2d 242) (1984); *Day v. State,*188 Ga. App. 648, 651 (10) (374 SE2d 87) (1988). ‘Accordingly [defendant’s] conditionally-probated sentence . . . must be reversed and the case remanded with direction that [defendant] be resentenced ... in accordance with *Bearden*and *Gaither.*(Cit.)’ *Day v.*State, supra at 652 (10).” *Eason v. State,*194 Ga. App. 678, supra at Division 4.

*Judgments of conviction affirmed. Sentences reversed with direction.*

*Carley, C. J., and Sognier, J., concur.*
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Verde Bio Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended April 30, 2022 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott Cox, Principal Financial Officer and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Case No. 13,895.

#### THOMAS v. CRUTTENDEN.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 71.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term. 1830.

Ejectment — Title—Bankruptcy—Commissioners’ Deed — Evidence—Records.

A person, claiming title under a deed from commissioners of bankrupt, under the bankrupt law of 1800 [2 Stat. 19], must show their authority, and that their proceedings were regular. &c., as they exercised only a special, limited power; but if the records are destroyed, the next best evidence will be received.

The plaintiff [James Thomas], having shown title in Washington Bowie, offered in evidence a deed from E. B. Caldwell, and purporting to be executed by them as commissioners of bankruptcy to Walter Smith and Charles Way man, assignees of the bankrupt; and offered to prove by W. Brent, the clerk of this court, that the bankrupt papers and records, in cases where commissions were issued by a judge of this court, were destroyed by the enemy in 1814; and by W. Crunch, that he, as assistant judge of this court, issued a commission of bankruptcy against Washington Bowie. And the plaintiff further offered in evidence a deed from the assignees to Baltzer. under whom the plaintiff claims; and a decree in chancery ordering a sale of this, as part of the real estate of Baltzer, and possession of the purchase under that decree; and also produced a certificate of the clerk of this court, made in January, 1804, that this court, in December term. 1803. decreed that the deed from the commissioners to the assignees should be recorded; and further proved that all the records and papers of that term were destroyed by the enemy. Those deeds recited the proceedings under the bankrupt law of 3800.

Mr. Redin, for defendant

[Joel Crutten-den], objected to the admission of the deed *937from the commissioners to the assignees, ■because all the proceedings under the commission of bankruptcy must be proved; nothing can be presumed; it is a special tribunal of limited powers and jurisdiction, &c.

Mr. Marbury and Mr. Key, for plaintiff:,

admit that everything necessary to support the jurisdiction and authority of the commissioners must be proved; but the question is, by what sort of evidence? The records and original papers are all destroyed. The next best evidence is that which is now offered. The recitals in the old deeds, recorded in 1802, twenty-eight years ago; the destruction of the original papers and records; the certificate of the clerk, recorded in January, 1804, that a decree was passed by this court in December, 1803, authorizing the recording cf the deed and the long possession under that deed, — are circumstances from which the jury may infer all the necessary proceedings under the bankrupt law.

THE COURT

was of that opinion ¡fiem. con.), and the jury rendered their verdict for the plaintiff. - '
Case No. 8,656.

#### LOVING et al. v. FAIRCHILD.

[1 McLean, 333.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Ohio.

Dec. Term, 1838.

Pleading — Amendment—Affidavit to Plea.

This is an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs [O. Loving & Co.] against the defendant [Oliver Fairchild], as the acceptor of a bill of exchange. The declaration having been filed, the defendant, filed his plea of non-assumpsit, without annexing to it an affidavit, as the statute requires, that the instrument on which the action is brought, was not executed by him. And a motion was made by Mr. Fox for leave to amend the plea by annexing such affidavit to it, as the rule of the court, which adopts the statute, requires.

Mr. Wright, opposed the motion.

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

The present motion cannot be distinguished from other motions, for leave to amend the pleadings. And this court have always been liberal in allowing amendments for the advancement of justice, where they are applied for in reasonable time. Leave is given to amend the plea by annexing an affidavit to-it, at the costs of the defendant.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,851-01

EX PARTE SIMON BAZILLE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1261252-A IN THE 180 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam. NEWELL, J., not participating.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment.

The First Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Bazille v. State, No. 01-11-00647-CR (Tex.

App.—Houston [1 Dist] Feb. 20, 2014) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed this st

application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded

it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that appellate counsel failed to timely inform him that his conviction had

been affirmed and advise him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Based on

the record, the trial court has determined that Applicant did not receive notification that his

conviction had been affirmed and that he had the right to file a pro se petition for discretoinary
2

review.

Relief is granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Crow,

180 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Applicant mayfile an out-of-time petition for discretionary

review of the judgment of the First Court of Appeals in cause number 01-11-00647-CR. Should

Applicant decide to file a petition for discretionary review, he must file it with this Court within

thirty days from the date of this Court’s mandate. Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed. Ex

Parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: January 29, 2020

Do not publish
ex10_39.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10.39

     

    
      SYMYX
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

      EXECUTIVE
CHANGE IN CONTROL AND SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN

      CONFIRMATION

      


      


      To: W.
Henry Weinberg

      


      Date:
March 18, 2008

      


      You have
agreed to participate in the attached Symyx Technologies, Inc. Executive Change
in Control and Severance Benefit Plan (the "Plan"). By
countersigning below, you confirm: (i) your agreement to the terms of the Plan
in the form attached whether or not such changes are eventually adopted by the
Board, (ii) your agreement that your participation in the Plan is further
modified by the exceptions defined below, and (iii) your acknowledgment that
this Plan supersedes your existing change in control letter between you and the
Company effective December 31, 1998.

      


      The
Company and you have agreed to certain exceptions to the Plan. Under Section
4(a) of the Plan, you will have an additional cash payment in the amount of
32,300 times the price per share paid by an acquirer upon a Change in Control
Termination as defined by the Plan. As a result of your right to an additional
payment under Section 4(a), you have agreed to relinquish all right to the
benefits and procedures specified under Section 4(c) of the Plan.

      


      Please
retain a copy of this confirmation and the Plan for your records. Please sign
and promptly return a copy of this confirmation by March 25, 2008.

      


      
        	 
      	
                Symyx
      Technologies, Inc.

              
	 
      	
                By:
      /s/ Troy Fenner

              
	 
      	
                Its:
      VP, Human Resources

              


      

      


      


      


      Acknowledged
and agreed:

      


      /s/  W. Henry
Weinberg

      W. Henry
Weinberg
Exhibit 10.6.1
 
 Amendment No. 3 to the .BIZ Registry Agreement




---



##### 



THE INTERNET CORPORATION FORNEUSTAR, INC.ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERSBy:
    
    /s/ Kurt J. Pritz
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Bradley SmithName:
    
    Kurt J. Pritz
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    Bradley SmithTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President, Services
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    VP and Corporate ControllerDate:
    
    1 June, 2009
    
    
    
    Date:
    
    May 26, 2009
Exhibit 32.1

SUNLINK HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of SunLink Health Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert M. Thornton, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |     |  |                            
|----------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|                  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert M. Thornton, Jr.
|                  |  |     |  | Robert M. Thornton, Jr.    
|                  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer    
|February 13, 2009 |  |     |  |
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Metric, today we're using our heads to measure up

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Metric, today we're using our heads to measure up 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. American Forces Information Service 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  American Forces Information Service, Department of Defense 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Shipping list no.: 92-0584-P. 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Series Title        
                    -  Defense billboard ; 58; Defense billboard (1988) ; # 58. 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  156 × 44 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Zeutschel OS 12000 Scanner at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu. 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

WILLIAM R. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

CASE NO. C2-11-0373

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH P. DEAVERS

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the OPINION AND ORDER filed February 6, 2013, JUDGMENT is

hereby entered DISMISSING this case.

Date: February 6, 2013 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-00373-EAS-EPD Doc #: 34 Filed: 02/06/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8753 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8753

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate single, unique 
       ZIP Codes for certain communities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2024

  Ms. Boebert (for herself, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Nehls, Mr. 
    Steil, and Mr. LaLota) introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the United States Postal Service to designate single, unique 
       ZIP Codes for certain communities, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SINGLE, UNIQUE ZIP CODES FOR CERTAIN COMMUNITIES.

    Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the United States Postal Service shall designate a single, unique ZIP 
Code for each of the following communities:
            (1) Eastvale, California.
            (2) Castle Pines, Colorado.
            (3) Centennial, Colorado.
            (4) Lone Tree, Colorado.
            (5) Silver Cliff, Colorado.
            (6) Superior, Colorado.
            (7) Goose Creek, Connecticut.
            (8) Scotland, Connecticut.
            (9) Estero, Florida.
            (10) Ft. Myers, Florida.
            (11) Hollywood, Florida.
            (12) Miami Lakes, Florida.
            (13) Ocoee, Florida.
            (14) Oakland Park, Florida.
            (15) The Villages, Florida.
            (16) Burr Ridge, Illinois.
            (17) Urbandale, Iowa.
            (18) Carmel, Indiana.
            (19) Swanzey, New Hampshire.
            (20) Kinnelon, New Jersey.
            (21) Flanders, New York.
            (22) Glendale, New York.
            (23) Riverside, New York.
            (24) Northampton, New York.
            (25) Sargent, Texas.
            (26) Fairlawn, Virginia.
            (27) Caledonia, Wisconsin.
            (28) Franklin, Wisconsin.
            (29) Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin.
            (30) Somers, Wisconsin.
            (31) Mills, Wyoming.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Clifton L. Cooke, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of SYS (the"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, basedon my knowledge:

1.            TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Registrant for the period endedDecember 28, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

2.            Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Dated: May 19, 2003                                             By:       /s/ Clifton L. Cooke, Jr.                                                                                           Clifton L. Cooke, Jr.                                                                                          Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10(i)


      STEPHEN E. ROTH
DIRECT LINE: (202) 383-0158
 Internet: sroth@sablaw.com

                                April 26, 2001

Board of Directors
GE Capital Life Assurance
 Company of New York
125 Park Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017-5529

          Re   GE Capital Life Separate Account II
               -----------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

          We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption
"Legal Matters" in the Statement of Additional Information filed as part of
Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 filed
by GE Capital Life Separate Account II for certain flexible premium variable
deferred annuity contracts (File No. 333-39955).  In giving this consent, we do
not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under
Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.

                              Very truly yours,

                              SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP



                              By: /s/ Stephen E. Roth
                                 -----------------------------
                                  Stephen E. Roth
Third Amendment to amended and restated 401(k) and Retirement Savings Plan



 Exhibit 10.21 
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO 
 THE ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS 401(k) AND RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN 
 (amended and restated as of January 1, 2004) 
 ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc. hereby adopts this Amendment No. 3 to the Alliance Data Systems 401(k) and Retirement Savings Plan, amended and restated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Plan”), effective as provided below.

  

	 	1.	Appendix A of the Plan shall be amended by adding the following new language at the end thereof: 

  

					
	 Employing Company
	  	 Years of Eligibility
	  	 Years of Vesting

			
	iCom Information & Communications L.P. (“iCom”)	  	Date of hire by iCom, but only if employed by the Company as of February 6, 2006.	  	Date of hire by iCom, but only if employed by the Company as of February 6, 2006.
			
	DoubleClick, Inc. (“Doubleclick”)	  	Date of hire by DoubleClick, but only if employed by the Company as of April 3, 2006.	  	Date of hire by DoubleClick, but only if employed by the Company as of April 3, 2006.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
amendment has been executed on this 20th day of April, 2006, but effective as provided above. 
  

			
	ADS ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Transient C. Taylor
No. 43015.

#### Protest 954620-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

On the record presented the protest was overruled.
#### Anco Watch Co. *v.*United States

No. 7527.

Entry No. 747335.

Invoice dated Le Sentier, Switzerland, May 30, 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 25, 1946.

(Decided February 3, 1948)

No appearance for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spedor,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Lawhence, Judge:

When this appeal for reappraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the appealing party.

Under rule 6 of this court, where there is no appearance in a case when it is called “it shall be deemed submitted, and shall be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.”

I have examined the record in this appeal for reappraisement and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I, therefore, find that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.